|
Unzip and Attack posted:On the other hand, if one political party is ok with nominating moderates to the Supreme Court and the other isn't, this has a demonstrable effect on the makeup of the Court over time. Only if you're replacing liberal justices with moderates. That is not happening here.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if you're replacing liberal justices with moderates. That is not happening here. That said, if the electorate is happy to elect partisan right-wing douchebags to public office, then I'm glad to sit by while they deal with the consequences. Poor whites bear the brunt of those policies a lot more than I ever will, so gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:He said "over time". It's not happening this time, but if one side is nominating moderates, and the other is nominating extremists, then eventually you're replacing liberal Justices with either moderates or extremists, until that's all that's left. But that's not what's happening. Sotomayor isn't moderate, and Kagan isn't really either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:I get why everyone wants a younger more liberal nominee, especially if the Dems take the senate. And I understand the political situation re: the election and the republican senate influences who can get confirmed, but is there any particular reason to believe that Obama wants a significantly more liberal nominee? It could be the three weeks or so of Obama strategically leaking minority candidates in order to embarrass and bait Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Seriously, you guys, every single thing Obama does is not some evidence of some secret characteristic showing how he behaves in every circumstance and the nature of the Democratic Party. Obama is playing to the current political and judicial circumstances, and still making a decent decision. He's not replacing RBG with Garland, he's replacing Scalia. He's trying to shift the court from 4 liberals, 1 libertarian, and 4 conservatives to 4 liberals, 1 moderate, 1 libertarian, and 3 conservatives which is actually a huge shift. This is also why the GOP are freaking out so much, they're losing their quorum of 4 reliable conservatives on the court and would be extremely vulnerable to 5-4 or even 6-3 rulings against them in upcoming cases. Plus, if Clinton is president for 4-8 years it's highly likely she'll have to replace two, if not all three, of Kennedy (age 79), RBG (age 83) and Breyer (age 77) during her time in office, one way or another. There will be plenty of chances to appoint young liberals to the court, so please don't act like appointing Garland is some ominous sign from heaven that all future Democratic nominees will be 63-year-old white male moderates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Aren't a lot of posters in here comfortable claiming that POTUS belongs to the Democrats for the next 20 years? Right now Obama is letting a slight liberal majority become the new normal on the Supreme Court. In 8 years, for all their howling, the angry conservative bloc will be used to getting the ruling they didn't want when something goes to the top. Then the real fun can begin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:Aren't a lot of posters in here comfortable claiming that POTUS belongs to the Democrats for the next 20 years? Right now Obama is letting a slight liberal majority become the new normal on the Supreme Court. In 8 years, for all their howling, the angry conservative bloc will be used to getting the ruling they didn't want when something goes to the top. Then the real fun can begin. GOP are betting on that 35% chance they win the presidential election and can possibly turn it into 6-3 if RBG retires too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:GOP are betting on that 35% chance they win the presidential election and can possibly turn it into 6-3 if RBG retires too. I'm asking why everyone in here is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. What the Republicans are doing in the Senate doesn't really factor in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:I'm asking why everyone in here is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. What the Republicans are doing in the Senate doesn't really factor in. We want SCOTUS to have 9 RBG clones on it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:I'm asking why everyone in here is running around like chickens with their heads cut off. What the Republicans are doing in the Senate doesn't really factor in. Did you follow any political threads during 2008 or 2012? Constant doom and gloom, with a handful of posters consoling and reassuring the arzying masses. "Romney is closing in with his national poll numbers!!!" "Relax, young goon, and look at these state-level polls from Ohio. Sleep now, my precious child." Half the forums will be convinced of the inevitable Trumpocalypse until the first Wednesday of November.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
How much does adding an emote cost again? Furthermore, does anyone still have the old arzy arzi?) art? I may be willing to fund its return
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Half the forums will be convinced of the inevitable Trumpocalypse until the first Wednesday of November. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Deuce posted:We want SCOTUS to have 9 Fixed that for you
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Seriously, you guys, every single thing Obama does is not some evidence of some secret characteristic showing how he behaves in every circumstance and the nature of the Democratic Party. Obama is playing to the current political and judicial circumstances, and still making a decent decision. He's not replacing RBG with Garland, he's replacing Scalia. He's trying to shift the court from 4 liberals, 1 libertarian, and 4 conservatives to 4 liberals, 1 moderate, 1 libertarian, and 3 conservatives which is actually a huge shift. This is also why the GOP are freaking out so much, they're losing their quorum of 4 reliable conservatives on the court and would be extremely vulnerable to 5-4 or even 6-3 rulings against them in upcoming cases. Plus let's not forget Obama isn't actually a socialist. He's a moderately center-left liberal. So, it appears, is Garland. Garland's probably exactly what he wants. edit: in addition to being the right choice for this political moment, as someone left wing enough to fit what Obama wants while moderate enough to make the Republicans look bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Plus let's not forget Obama isn't actually a socialist. He's a moderately center-left liberal. So, it appears, is Garland. Garland's probably exactly what he wants. Again if Garland was exactly what he wants, he'd have nominated him before. Garland is clearly a compromise choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Again if Garland was exactly what he wants, he'd have nominated him before. Garland is clearly a compromise choice. Compromise vs. what? Appointing Sotomayor twice? Prior candidates are removed from the pool. If last time Garland was his 2nd choice and if the first time Garland was his 3rd choice, now Garland would be his first choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Not too hard to believe that Obama wants to nominate someone he thinks has a chance to draw enough GOP defectors to push him/her through. In addition to being someone he finds to be an acceptable SC jurist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Again if Garland was exactly what he wants, he'd have nominated him before. Garland is clearly a compromise choice. Why are you ignoring the change in Senate leadership? What Obama wanted previously isn't going to map flawlessly with what he wants now. He considered Garland before, and opted with more obviously 'liberal' picks instead. I believe that President Obama wants to appoint best Justice he can. Given that nominating one of the Nina Pillards of the legal world would enable his opposition and the View from Nowhere press to more readily dismiss his nominee, he nominated Garland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Fixed that for you Sotomayor is amazing in some ways, but she's not great in others. She's been the sole dissent on some cases where I really agree with the majority. The court doesn't need 9 of her. I would argue that some dissenting view is always necessary on a court to provide counter arguments and make a majority's stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Wulfolme posted:Aren't a lot of posters in here comfortable claiming that POTUS belongs to the Democrats for the next 20 years? Right now Obama is letting a slight liberal majority become the new normal on the Supreme Court. In 8 years, for all their howling, the angry conservative bloc will be used to getting the ruling they didn't want when something goes to the top. Then the real fun can begin. Or Clinton loses the Senate badly as expected in 2018. Then some combination of RBG/Kennedy/Breyer dies between Januaries 2019-2021 and the Republicans make it into Garland nom II Senate boogaloo. After 12 years of Democrat presidents enough of the US is willing to vote in a not-Hitler republican presidential candidate in 2020 because "the other side should have a go" or "that recession was completely Hillary's fault not China imploding". Boom SCOTUS of 2-1-6 to the conservatives. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
All because that dastardly obummer is a compromising weakling!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Again if Garland was exactly what he wants, he'd have nominated him before. Garland is clearly a compromise choice. You don't think Obama might've wanted Garland before but simply wanted Kagan and Sotomayor more? It's entirely possible Garland was next on his list after those two. I'd be cool with Sotomayor being a Triple SCOTUS Justice or something, but that's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Why are you ignoring the change in Senate leadership? What Obama wanted previously isn't going to map flawlessly with what he wants now. He considered Garland before, and opted with more obviously 'liberal' picks instead. I'm not. People who say that what he genuinely wanted was Garland are. I have no doubt that Obama thinks Garland is the best justice (a) given republican control of the Senate (b) given Republican intransigence (c) while it's unknown who the next President would be. Those are a lot of qualifications on "best justice" and the important thing is that as soon as (c) and potentially (a) changes, that significantly alters if it's a good choice. That's why it matters if Republicans try to pocket him as the nominee after the election. It's not even the ideology as much as it is the age - you're giving up at least 1/3rd of the expected 'value' of making the pick by going with Garland over a younger justice. Evil Fluffy posted:You don't think Obama might've wanted Garland before but simply wanted Kagan and Sotomayor more? It's entirely possible Garland was next on his list after those two. If he was 10 years younger, maybe. The description of how the White House views him has always been the best candidate you can potentially get confirmed if the Republicans take the Senate. I'm sure Obama respects him a great deal, but he's not the candidate you pick if you can get through whoever you want. He's not bad, and I'd be happy if he was confirmed over the summer. He's just sub-par if nobody gets confirmed until November and then Hillary wins. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Isn't it the case that a judge's track record prior to being appointed to SCOTUS is not necessarily indicative of how they'll act as a justice? I remember a lot of people in this forum freaking out about how Sotomayor, too, had a reputation as a tough-on-crime moderate and might be ideologically to the right of the other liberal justices. We all know how that turned out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Isn't it the case that a judge's track record prior to being appointed to SCOTUS is not necessarily indicative of how they'll act as a justice? I remember a lot of people in this forum freaking out about how Sotomayor, too, had a reputation as a tough-on-crime moderate and might be ideologically to the right of the other liberal justices. We all know how that turned out. I was thinking something similar. Maybe Obama isn’t as interested in Garland’s résumé as he is in the man. I’m not sure that it’s the best way to choose justices, but it’s a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I was thinking something similar. Garland's biggest advantage is the leverage he gives Democratic Senate candidates as long as the Republicans stonewall him. Cracking through that or getting Democrats more Senate seats more than offsets the disadvantage of his age in Obama's calculation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Isn't it the case that a judge's track record prior to being appointed to SCOTUS is not necessarily indicative of how they'll act as a justice? I remember a lot of people in this forum freaking out about how Sotomayor, too, had a reputation as a tough-on-crime moderate and might be ideologically to the right of the other liberal justices. We all know how that turned out. To a certain degree, for cases where the Supreme Court will overturn any decisions you might want to make and for cases where going out on a limb might kill your chances of getting a SC nomination. But Garland has been on the bench for a long time and while he's always wanted to be on the Supreme Court and worked to get there, it does seem he's less sympathetic to criminal defendants than some judges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
fourwood posted:Not too hard to believe that Obama wants to nominate someone he thinks has a chance to draw enough GOP defectors to push him/her through. In addition to being someone he finds to be an acceptable SC jurist. Crazy talk. It must be because Obama is some secret conservative. /sarcasm
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
SC justices aren't like a vending machine candy bar where you as President can take your vacancy token and go, "hmmm today I feel like a Kegan" If you have issues with this nominee look where he's landing on the analysis, consider all the heinous poo poo the Lich did in his tenure and imagine how the rulings would be different. Obama is dismantling the final hopes of the GOP for winning their bullshit culture war and they know it, hence their ridiculous behavior. They don't know how to govern without it as the carrot to get their regressive objectives accomplished. If one more conservative judge can be replaced beyond this it will be another generation before they can try again and I don't think evangelical Christians have that much cultural oxygen left for Roe. The most unthinkable thing for Movement Conservatives is that not only will they lose this fight but it never really mattered in the first place and the world is not going to end in hellfire and or rapture as a result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Personally I'm fine with Garland as the pick because he seems fairly reasonable, which when you think about it is really all you need to completely derail most of the GOP agenda for the next decade or so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Personally I'm fine with Garland as the pick because he seems fairly reasonable, which when you think about it is really all you need to completely derail most of the GOP agenda for the next decade or so. Yes and as much as I hate to say it, its Congress' job to fix the bad issues with criminal justice. The fact that we're disconnected enough from the problem as to have for profit prisons in this country should be summary enough as to why judges giving out maximum sentences and other things in their purview are not the root of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:How much does adding an emote cost again? Furthermore, does anyone still have the old arzy arzi?) art? I may be willing to fund its return Again, :arzy: never was an emote. Do you mean ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
If I could get fifty bucks from you I would be happy. But if I could get seventy five bucks from you I'd definitely opt for that over the fifty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Again, :arzy: never was an emote. Do you mean Nah, I just thought :arzy: used to be because I'd seen it referred to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Sotomayor is amazing in some ways, but she's not great in others. She's been the sole dissent on some cases where I really agree with the majority. Which is exactly why I like having one, and only one, Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Which is exactly why I like having one, and only one, Clarence Thomas. It's why he doesn't have to be awake during oral argument. Someone needs to be the hasatan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Seems to me it's perfectly reasonable to assume this isn't some 11d chess and he just likes Garland and the philosophy he represents? It's right in line with the passages in his books about his judicial thinking; it's quite clear he doesn't like 'legislating from the bench' and likes the sort of thing that happened with gay marriage, where the courts affirmed what was already happening. A lot of people are appear to be crafting theories using shaky assumptions that seem out of line with the tenor of Obama's presidency. The idea he's going to yank the carpet out seems particularly ludicrous, I haven't seen anyone produce any evidence Obama would be upset if the republicans go ahead and give him the nod after some pouting, he cares much more about the process and getting things done than about promoting far left policy. And to that end Garland is exactly sort of pick you would expect, but more than that he's an extremely well qualified jurist who will hopefully get through congress either now or during the lame duck session. Hillary (or Trump) will get their own picks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Nah, I just thought :arzy: used to be because I'd seen it referred to. Arzying refers to the poster, not a emote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I'm more than happy to have forums abuse reported, but I would like to remind people that arguing is acceptable in D&D, and is not considered trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Seems to me it's perfectly reasonable to assume this isn't some 11d chess and he just likes Garland and the philosophy he represents? Nominating the justice (from among the justices he would find acceptable) that would cause the maximum political damage to the Republicans in an election year is not 11d chess. Suggesting that he's not factoring politics into his decision is even more absurd than your caricature of the opposite argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2016 22:15
|
|